The Two Sides of Thought

On this page I am just putting excerpts out and looking at them,so I may personally see what they "hold " as form

A Theory : Animal exploration is primarily motor in nature. An animal must move around an unfamiliar thing or situation to come to any understanding of it – to determine its affective relevance and sensory nature. This process of moving around experimentally appears as a consequence of the interaction between the mutually regulatory or inhibitory evaluative systems whose responsibilities are identification of potential danger, or threat,     and potential satisfaction, or promise

. In the human case, each of these systems apparently comes, in the course of normal development, to dominate one of our twinned cortical hemispheres: the right governs response to threat (and to punishment),         while the left controls response to promise and, perhaps (although much less clearly) to satisfaction   

 me-  (in the above the titled Animal is same a that titled Human)  and mammals have two hemisphere brains,thus makes sense,because all of us animals evolved together in this environment called "Earth"!

 “Positive” and “negative” are not opposite ends of a continuum, however – not in any straightforward way. The two “states” appear orthogonal, although (perhaps) mutually inhibitory. Furthermore, “positive” and “negative” are not simple: each can be subdivided, in a more or less satisfactory manner, at least once. Positively valued things, for example, can be satisfying or promising (can serve as consummatory or incentive rewards, respectively55). Many satisfying things are consumable, in the literal sense, as outlined previously. Food, for example, is a consummatory reward to the hungry – which means that it is valued under such circumstances as a satisfaction. Likewise, water satisfies the man deprived of liquid. Sexual contact is rewarding to the lustful, and warmth is desirable to those without shelter. Sometimes more complex stimuli are satisfying, or rewarding, as well. It all depends on what is presently desired, and how that desire plays itself out. A mild verbal reprimand might well foster feelings of relief in the individual who expects a severe physical beating – which is to say, technically, that the absence of an expected punishment can serve quite effectively as a

reward (it is in fact the form of reward that the tyrant prefers). Regardless of their form, attained satisfactions produce satiation, calm and somnolent pleasure, and (temporary) cessation of the behaviors directed to that particular end – although behaviors which culminate in a satisfactory conclusion are more likely to be manifested, in the future, when “instinctive” or “voluntary” desire re-emerges.

The left hemisphere, by contrast, appears particularly skilled at linguistic processing and communication, at detailed, linear thinking, at fine motor skill, and at the comprehension of wholes in terms of their constituent elements.154 The left hemisphere – particularly its frontal or motor (sub)unit – also governs approach behavior,155 in the presence of cues of satisfaction, is integrally involved in the production of positive affect, and appears particularly good at carrying out practiced activities, at applying familiar modes of apprehension. The left seems at its best when what is and what should be done are no longer questions; when tradition governs behavior, and the nature and meaning of things has been fixed. The dual specialization of the left – for what has been practiced, and for what is positive – can be understood, in part, in the following manner: positive affect rules in known territory, by definition: a thing or situation has been explored most optimally (and is therefore most well known) if it has been transformed by behavioral adaptations manifested in its presence into something of determinate use (or satisfaction) or into potential for such (into promise). The

The right hemisphere, in contrast to the left, appears to have remained in direct contact with – appears specialized for encounter with – the unknown and its terrors, which are apperceived in the domain of instinct, motivation, and affect, long before they can be classified or comprehended intellectually. The right hemisphere’s capacity for inhibition and extinction of behavior (for inducing caution during exploration, for governing flight, for producing negative affect) ensures that due respect is granted the inexplicable (and therefore dangerous) when it makes its appearance. The right’s aptitude for global pattern recognition (which appears as a consequence of its basic neurophysiological structure156) helps ensure that a provisional notion (a fantastic representation) of the unknown event (what it is like, how action should be conducted in its presence, what other things or situations it brings to mind) might be rapidly formulated. The right hemisphere appears integrally involved in the initial stages of analysis of the unexpected or novel – and its a priori hypothesis is always this: this (unknown) place, this unfamiliar space, this unexplored territory is dangerous, and therefore partakes in the properties of all other known dangerous places and territories, and all those that remain unknown, as well. This form of information-processing – “a” is “b” – is metaphor; generation of metaphor (key to the construction of narratives – dreams, dramas, stories and
myth) might well be regarded as the first stage of hypothesis construction. As situation-specific adaptive behaviors are generated, as a consequence of exploration, this provisional labelling or hypothesis (or fantasy) might well undergo modification (assuming nothing actually punishing or determinately threatening occurs); such modification constitutes further and more detailed learning. Anxiety recedes, in the absence of punishment or further threat (including novelty); hope occupies the affective forefront, accompanied by the desire to move forward, and to explore (under the governance of the left hemisphere).